24-Hour Arrest Deadline Begins With Actual Detention, Not Formal Arrest: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has clarified that the 24-hour period for producing a detained person before a Magistrate begins when their liberty is actually curtailed, rather than when the investigating agency formally records their arrest. In Sri Sujit Das and Others v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 1195, a Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar held that investigating agencies cannot postpone constitutional safeguards by delaying the formal recording of arrest.

Background of the Case

The case arose from an investigation under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The appellants were intercepted by a search team at around 2:00 PM on 29 September 2025, while investigating officers suspected them of transporting narcotic substances. The search and seizure process continued until approximately 5:00 PM that day.

However, the formal arrest memos were prepared only on 30 September 2025, at 11:00 AM and 11:15 AM. The appellants were produced before a Judicial Magistrate at 4:45 PM on the same day. The central question was whether the 24-hour period under Article 22(2) began at the time of interception or only when their formal arrest was recorded.

Actual Restriction of Liberty and Article 22(2)

Article 22(2) of the Constitution requires that an arrested and detained person be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court.

The Supreme Court rejected the distinction drawn between investigative detention and formal custodial arrest. In paragraph 43, it held that Article 22(2) does not permit the creation of a buffer zone in which a person's liberty is curtailed for investigative purposes while constitutional safeguards remain suspended. The Court observed that the constitutional provision does not sanction exclusion of time spent on enquiry and investigation before formal arrest.

The Court consequently held that the 24-hour period commences when a person is intercepted and detained by the investigating agency, “when his liberty is curtailed”. This interpretation prevents investigating authorities from postponing judicial scrutiny merely by delaying the preparation of an arrest memo.

Investigative Formalities Cannot Extend the Constitutional Deadline

The investigating agency argued that time spent on search, seizure, weighing, sampling, questioning and other statutory procedures should not be included in calculating the 24-hour period. The Court rejected this position; it clarified that the only permissible exclusion is the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's court.

In its conclusions, the Court expressly stated that “no other time period is permitted to be excluded” apart from the necessary journey time. The ruling is particularly important in investigations under special statutes such as the NDPS Act, where procedural requirements may take considerable time. Such requirements cannot override the constitutional obligation to produce a detained person before a Magistrate within the prescribed period.

Section 58 BNSS: Detention Must Also Be Reasonable

The Court further clarified that compliance with the 24-hour limit does not automatically make the entire period of detention lawful. Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), corresponding to Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, imposes an additional requirement: detention must not exceed what is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

The Court explained that Section 58 BNSS mandates two limitations; the constitutional ceiling of 24 hours and the requirement that detention within that period remain reasonable. Thus, investigating agencies cannot treat the entire 24-hour period as an automatic entitlement.

The responsibility also extends to Magistrates. At the time of production, they must record the actual date and time when the person's liberty was curtailed and examine whether the detention was reasonable. If detention exceeds what is justified in the circumstances, the Magistrate “may decline remand” . Judicial scrutiny, therefore, involves more than checking the clock; it requires examining the justification for the period of detention.

Application and Directions

Applying these principles, the Supreme Court treated 2:00 PM on 29 September 2025 as the time when the appellants' liberty was curtailed. They were required to be produced before the Magistrate by 2:00 PM on 30 September, subject to the permitted journey-time exclusion. Their production at 4:45 PM amounted to a breach of Article 22(2), renderingtheir continued detention beyond the deadline “illegal and unconstitutional” .

The Court also found that the unexplained delay between the completion of the search and seizure process at 5:00 PM on 29 September and the formal arrests the following morning was unreasonable under Section 58 BNSS .

The Court set aside the Tripura High Court's order and directed that the appellants be produced before the jurisdictional Special Court within a maximum period of seven days; thereafter, they were to be released on bail on appropriate terms and conditions.

The judgment strengthens the constitutional protection against arbitrary detention. By making actual restriction of liberty the starting point of the 24-hour period, the Supreme Court has prevented formal arrest records from being used to postpone judicial oversight. More importantly, it has clarified that detention must remain reasonable even within the constitutional time limit. The decision reinforces a fundamental principle: investigative convenience cannot take precedence over personal liberty and the safeguards guaranteed under Article 22(2).